Lord Robert Reed, president of the Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council (PC), has decided to weigh in on the discussion concerning Jamaica’s retention of the PC as the country’s final appellate court.

In a letter published in The Gleaner newspaper, he asserted that the council is willing and able to continue to fulfil its function as the final court for the Jamaican people. He said the costs are not as onerous as many claim, suggesting that through digital channels people can participate in the deliberations of the court without having to be physically in England.

The learned justice has weighed in at a point where many of his predecessors feared to tread. There have been comments from PC justices occasionally, but it is the first time that any is weighing in as Lord Reed did. I am not sure he did himself any favours. He has merely poured gasoline on the already burning fire lit by those who have become impatient with this arrangement and want to see the exit of the PC from our shores. His intervention may well be seen as an attempt to cement the PC in the minds of the Jamaican people at a time when the debate is raging. He is probably trying to take advantage of the lethargic pace at which the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) is doing its work. Perhaps if more had been achieved, he might have been more reticent to intervene.

Other commentators in the legal profession have since rubbished the justice’s comment on the cost that Jamaicans have to bear to have their legal issues attended to in Britain. To be sure, only the well heeled can consider paying the inordinate costs for which such an appeal calls. As one prominent barrister indicated, the costs have more to do with the retention of lawyers in England to do the work on the ground. If one has to be there physically, the costs add up quickly. Not to mention the air fare to get there.

So Lord Reed is not as forthcoming on this matter as he appeared. To retain legal representation in England from Jamaica is not an easy matter. It is not cheap. This is perhaps why supporters of retaining the PC tend to be silent on these costs. Those who should know better are not as forthcoming as they ought to be.

The whole matter of legal representation, especially at the appellate level, should not prove an inordinate burden on any Jamaican. The Privy Council has been such from the very beginning. This is why ordinary Jamaicans, even if they know of the existence of the PC and its work, do not avail themselves of its services. They will take their licks all the way to the Jamaican Appeal Court, but relate to them what they would have to undergo if the matter is to be referred to England and they may very well have a coronary event.

The truth is that many Jamaicans do not have the financial resources to take their case to the Appeal Court, much less to consider the PC. Those who defend the PC as our final court are not always, if at all, forthcoming in addressing the matter of cost when they address the subject. It is manifestly unfair that such a burden should attend the dispensation of justice, especially in a poor country where many cannot even afford the services of lawyers.

About 100 years ago, the learned Lord Chief Justice Hewart uttered the famous aphorism that justice must not only be done, but it must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. This should ring loudly here in Jamaica. Part of the manifest and undoubted dispensation of justice has to rest on less burden being placed on the backs of those who seek it.

This reality seems to escape the gaze of those in our midst who want to retain the PC as our final court. Those who argue that the Law Lords will dispense fairer justice because they are far removed from the Caribbean and are thus free from the taint of corruption small island states would allow are insulting the sensibilities of the Jamaican people.

Eminent attorney-at-law Valerie Neita-Robertson seems wedded to this view, judging from public statements she has made on the matter. In a recent comment on Justice Reed’s letter, she is firmly committed to the fact that Jamaica should continue with the PC. In fact, Justice Reed’s comments seem to have validated or at least justified Neita-Robertson’s own view for the status quo to continue.

I wonder to what extent she is aware of the aforementioned costs and whether she would be prepared to educate Jamaicans on what really is involved here? Is she aware that over 80 per cent of the cases that have been referred to the PC from Jamaica have been upheld by the Law Lords. If corruption of the process was such a serious matter as she seems to allege, why this commendable outcome? I can hear the pushback: “Well many cases are not referred to them anyway,” which would give succour to the argument that costs are a serious problem.

This is compounded by the ignominy that to get justice, even when you can afford it, you need a visa to go to the country that finally decides your fate. This is a travesty, which perhaps explains why Lord Reed did not address the issue in his letter. I do not buy the argument either that the size of any Caribbean State necessarily lends itself to a corruption of the justice process. This can never be a valid argument for a people to justly administer their justice system.

It is time that we realise that rendering the PC redundant is about who we are as a people and to what we wish to aspire. It goes to the very core of our self-identification, self-esteem, and sovereignty as a people. This is why I have said repeatedly in this space that if we are going to repatriate our judicial sovereignty from King Charles and his heirs, we should not locate it in a halfway house in Barbados or Trinidad, but bring it straight home to Jamaica.

It is true that under the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) things would be a bit cheaper than the PC, but have you travelled to Trinidad recently? How many Jamaicans can afford this? Like Justice Reed, you may argue digital connections, but it should never be that any Jamaican should not be able to take a bus to the supreme court in downtown Kingston to have his legal matter finally attended to.

Despite the dismal cry against corruption in the country and the shenanigans of lawyers who have been barred from practising law in Jamaica by the General Legal Council, our judiciary, especially at the appellate level, is still highly admired by many Jamaicans. We only need to strengthen our justice infrastructure and a great deal is being done in this regard.

The Court of Appeal should continue to hear appeals, but the final court should be the country’s Supreme Court. It is a testament to the lack of faith and trust in ourselves that we have not done this before. Our lawyers and judges are among the brightest you can find anywhere in the world. Let us invest faith in ourselves and bring our appellate jurisdiction here to Jamaica where it really belongs. If not now, when?

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; The Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.